Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

-Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;

Quote:The key here is that Feinstein made sure to throw a clause in about "protecting legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners," yet wants them treated as if they are guilty by requiring massive gun registration and fingerprinting for firearms that have been lawfully purchased. The legislation covers a ton of ground. Nearly every semi-automatic handgun in the United States has a detachable magazine.

(29-12-2012 02:35 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Ummm, okay? I don't support publicly listing gun owners. But are you really trying to draw a correlation between deaths via alcohol and cars with gun deaths?

Absolutely. A person makes a bad decision and shoots someone and kills them or a person makes a bad decision and drives drunk and kills someone. They both are the perceived cause of the outcome and yet, while alcohol is deemed responsible for the deaths of 16000 innocent people no one attacks the alcohol industry. So it makes me wonder if the issue is really that people are dying or is the issue that people have guns.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

(29-12-2012 04:14 PM)Diablo Wrote: Interesting statistic, but I am not sure that alone proves any real point.... except maybe there needs to be tighter laws against drunk driving.

People should be fingerprinted and have their DNA put on file at birth any damn way.

It proves that nobody gives a fuck about the victims. They only care about the tool. If they really gave a shit about the victims they'd be bothering with legislation regarding alcohol or tobacco bans instead of guns.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

(29-12-2012 04:14 PM)Diablo Wrote: Interesting statistic, but I am not sure that alone proves any real point.... except maybe there needs to be tighter laws against drunk driving.

People should be fingerprinted and have their DNA put on file at birth any damn way.

It proves that nobody gives a fuck about the victims. They only care about the tool. If they really gave a shit about the victims they'd be bothering with legislation regarding alcohol or tobacco bans instead of guns.

In the US we tried once making alcohol illegal, it didn't work out well.

Banning assault rifles, which are clearly not useful for hunting, does work for the most part.

You are merely comparing apples to oranges. It is a ridiculous argument worthy of Faux Noise.

But they are useful for hunting. And other than 'they are scary looking' you can't provide an arguement for banning assault rifles. Also, there are millions of them in this country already. Do you actually think that banning them is going to get rid of them?

On the contrary, your's is an argument worth of Piers Morgan or MSNBC.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”